So I hear you saying (or at least seem to be suggesting) verse 2 might give us clues on the proper way to view verse 1? Alright, let's go with that. What is verse 2 referring to then?
Key words:
tohu ('formless', 'without form')
bohu ('void', 'empty', 'desolate')
hosek ('darkness')
tehom ('the deep', 'great deep', 'abyss'; primordial waters of creation)
These are just descriptive terms that describe the earth later get altered in the later verses.
You redefined your question to me several times now, I'm tired of waiting. It is quite a simple question I'm not asking you to defend the whole Genesis as you see it, just one point. Answer don't answer, I'm not going to bug you about it anymore.
OK, now you've lost me, because I just answered your question in the last post! If Genesis is meant to be understood as conveying scientifically factual information then Genesis and science are at odds when it comes to the question of universal common ancestry (i.e., they can't both be correct). I've answered your question twice now. Was my answer unclear? Do I really need to spell it out? If the verses in Genesis 1 that tell of God creating birds, and sea creatures, and land creatures and plants on different days are meant to convey scientifically factual information about the origin and history of life on this planet including the order in which said types of life appear, then what Genesis says and what modern science says about universal common ancestry (i.e., the former saying there is no universal common ancestry and the latter saying there is) are at odds with each other (i.e., they both can't be right).
Are you now finally going to demonstrate that that indeed is the way we're supposed to understand Genesis (i.e., as conveying scientifically accurate information) AND answer my questions about verse 2?
Being scientifically accurate doesn't mean it is going to reflect reality only it fits in how people view the universe using science. Do you believe Jesus rose from the dead? What does science say about that? The crux of all of these discussions is did God say, which assumes God is real and actually had something to say about a topic that we have to take seriously or not at all?
And there's also evidence that these various groups of non-Egyptians were used as slaves in numerous building projects and the storehouses of Pithom and Raamses directly cited in Exodus have been discovered by archaeologists. As I said there is much debate over the details and chronology, but wholesale denial of the entire book of Exodus and any enslavement in Egypt that requires us to believe it's all a wholesale fiction made up out of nothing strains credulity.
But there's no mention I believe in the records of the Egyptians of a large captive Jewish population? And the ancient Egyptians were consummate record keepers.
But in all things I prefer to be guided by specialists who study these things and have expert knowledge.
Consummate record keepers? They were biased recorders of history just like everyone else who altered the truth of what happened in military campaigns to make themselves look better and omitted anything that might be embarrassing or make them look weak or defeated
@TruthMuse,
What is Genesis 1:2 describing? If Genesis 1 is an account of actual history, then if we were present at the time of Genesis 1:2, then what would we see/witness?
Genesis is an account written down, impossible for people to know anything before Adam and Eve unless God shared with them what occurred. If we were there we would have seen it in real-time as soon as time was created to have anything in it seen.
No one was there for the entire creation yet that doesn't stop you from telling me what Genesis says happened. So what is happening in Genesis 1:2? IF we were present then what would we see? What is Genesis 1:2 describing we would see?
It's not a trick question
How about at least just tell me what comes to mind when you read Genesis 1:2? What does the earth look like, what do you see, what comes to mind when you read Genesis 1:2?
It's really not a trick question. But if you don't want to answer then no problem. I'll answer it myself. When I read Genesis 1:2 the picture that comes to mind is a lifeless (void/empty), misshapen (formless) dead planet earth enveloped in darkness that is completely covered by deep waters all the way around with no continents/no land yet.
"If we were there we would have seen it in real-time as soon as time was created to have anything in it seen."
It's really not a trick question. But if you don't want to answer then no problem. I'll answer it myself. When I read Genesis 1:2 the picture that comes to mind is a lifeless (void/empty), misshapen (formless) dead planet earth enveloped in darkness that is completely covered by deep waters all the way around with no continents/no land yet.
Yes
It's really not a trick question. But if you don't want to answer then no problem. I'll answer it myself. When I read Genesis 1:2 the picture that comes to mind is a lifeless (void/empty), misshapen (formless) dead planet earth enveloped in darkness that is completely covered by deep waters all the way around with no continents/no land yet.
I will also analyze my own answer and explain what's wrong with it.
The problem with my own answer is that it assumes a particular view of the world. A few pages back I was criticized and told: "You perhaps should stop reading what other people say about the Bible so much and just read and believe the Bible."
But that's the big self-deception and self-delusion that people are under! You can't 'just read and believe the Bible' WITHOUT READING WHAT OTHER PEOPLE SAY about it. That's because EVERY translation of the Bible represents SOMEONE ELSE'S INTERPRETATION ALREADY! When the Bible is translated into a different language from the original a bunch of people (usually Bible scholars) get together as part of a translation committee and THEY HAVE TO DECIDE WHAT EACH VERSE MEANS and WHAT THEY THINK each verse is saying in order to know how best to communicate that meaning in a translation. If anyone thinks they just give a literal translation, then think again. So-called 'literal' translations lead to MISUNDERSTANDING, because you're not just translating into a different language but into a different culture as well that has its own changing understanding of words. A 'literal' translation would give you things like: "[God] will put His law in their *intestines/entrails* and write it on their hearts" (Jeremiah 31:33)! So unless you know how to read the Bible in its original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, then be under no illusion that when you read a translation of the Bible you are reading a BUNCH OF PEOPLE'S BELIEFS, OPINIONS, INTERPRETATIONS of WHAT THEY THINK the Bible says.
Second, NO ONE reads the Bible with an empty head devoid of any pre-conceived ideas. EVERYONE reads and interprets the Bible in the context of a world view perception THAT THEY ALREADY HAVE.
So when I write that "When I read Genesis 1:2 the picture that comes to mind is a lifeless (void/empty), misshapen (formless) dead planet earth enveloped in darkness that is completely covered by deep waters all the way around with no continents/no land yet"--we have to ask the question, 'Where did I get this idea about planet earth from?' And the answer is that it was taught to me by the culture/society I live in.
If someone lived in a culture/society that taught a flat earth or Ptolemy's geocentric view or Aristotle's crystalline sphere view of the universe, then they would read the Bible through that lens and world view understanding.
Once again, this is why it's essential that the Bible be read through the lens and world view of the time and culture in which it was written.
Now people keep giving me grief about this, saying don't read Genesis in its Ancient Near East historical context, because the 'plain meaning of the Bible is clear' so all you have to do it "just read and believe it". But such people have fooled themselves into thinking that they're reading the Bible objectively when they're not. They're simply reading the Bible through their own cultural understanding and world view lens.
***So enough of this delusion. If one rejects a Genesis reading in its Ancient Near East historical context and says 'just read and follow the plain meaning', they may think and have fooled themselves into believing they're reading objectively, but they are NOT; they are simply replacing one cultural/world view lens with a different one--their own! So it's not as simple as 'just read and believe'---NO ONE can 'just' do that. If one wants to reject the Ancient Near East historical context of Genesis, then that person has to identify what cultural/world view lens we SHOULD read Genesis through instead, if not the Ancient Near East, and justify that decision.
***Now I see NO justification for reading Genesis 1 through the lens of my own world view understanding and culture. It makes far more sense to read Genesis 1 in its Ancient Near East historical context. This decision finds additional support when we note the closest parallels to Genesis 1:2:
"Now the world was undifferentiated formlessness [töhu wävöhu « Hehu], and darkness [höSek « Keku] was over the surface of the primordial watery deep [tëhôm « Nun]; but the divine wind [rûah 'ëlohîm « Amun] was hovering over the primeval waters [hammäyim « Nun]."
Now the above is from the Egyptian Pyramid Texts & Coffin Texts. These texts are known to date 2100-2400 BC, which is 700 to 1,200 years BEFORE Moses, depending on whether one adopts the 'late' or 'early' date for the Exodus. One cannot help but notice the parallel to Genesis 1:2:
"And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters"
***Now it is difficult to impress upon people how incredibly unusual it is to find this level of agreement between two Ancient Near East texts from different time periods and civilizations. It was once popular to claim that the Genesis creation account was directly dependent on and came from the Babylonian Enuma Elish. This view has fallen into disfavor and today is rejected by most, because the two have similar themes but the themes are common throughout Ancient Near East culture in general and lack specific points of agreement. The differences are too great, and there is nothing even close to the correspondence above. The differences between Genesis 1 and Egyptian creation accounts are also great, but where they are similar those similarities are uncanny like the example above.
In short, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Genesis 1 is not just repudiating Ancient Near East pagan cosmogonies in general, but is *specifically* repudiating the Egyptian Hermopolis creation account tradition reflected in the Pyramid/Coffin Texts. Therefore, we must interpret Genesis 1 in this context, just like we have to interpret Titus 1:12 in the context of the Greek Epimenedes who Paul quotes in that verse ('One of Crete's own prophets has said, "Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, idle bellies'"), or just like we must interpret Jude 9 in the context of the pseudepigraphal book the Assumption of Moses that Jude 9 alludes to.
***In light of these and other uncanny similarities, anyone who rejects this must justify why we should read Genesis 1 through a different cultural/worldview lens than the Ancient Near East. Genesis 1:2 seems to be referring to the primeval cosmic waters in Egyptian creation theology and repudiating their teaching. What reason can I give to reject such an understanding in favor of my own worldview lens that understands 'earth' in Genesis 1:2 to be a planet of our solar system in space? I can find no reason.
It's really not a trick question. But if you don't want to answer then no problem. I'll answer it myself. When I read Genesis 1:2 the picture that comes to mind is a lifeless (void/empty), misshapen (formless) dead planet earth enveloped in darkness that is completely covered by deep waters all the way around with no continents/no land yet.
I will also analyze my own answer and explain what's wrong with it.
The problem with my own answer is that it assumes a particular view of the world. A few pages back I was criticized and told: "You perhaps should stop reading what other people say about the Bible so much and just read and believe the Bible."
But that's the big self-deception and self-delusion that people are under! You can't 'just read and believe the Bible' WITHOUT READING WHAT OTHER PEOPLE SAY about it. That's because EVERY translation of the Bible represents SOMEONE ELSE'S INTERPRETATION ALREADY! When the Bible is translated into a different language from the original a bunch of people (usually Bible scholars) get together as part of a translation committee and THEY HAVE TO DECIDE WHAT EACH VERSE MEANS and WHAT THEY THINK each verse is saying in order to know how best to communicate that meaning in a translation. If anyone thinks they just give a literal translation, then think again. So-called 'literal' translations lead to MISUNDERSTANDING, because you're not just translating into a different language but into a different culture as well that has its own changing understanding of words. A 'literal' translation would give you things like: "[God] will put His law in their *intestines/entrails* and write it on their hearts" (Jeremiah 31:33)! So unless you know how to read the Bible in its original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, then be under no illusion that when you read a translation of the Bible you are reading a BUNCH OF PEOPLE'S BELIEFS, OPINIONS, INTERPRETATIONS of WHAT THEY THINK the Bible says.
Second, NO ONE reads the Bible with an empty head devoid of any pre-conceived ideas. EVERYONE reads and interprets the Bible in the context of a world view perception THAT THEY ALREADY HAVE.
So when I write that "When I read Genesis 1:2 the picture that comes to mind is a lifeless (void/empty), misshapen (formless) dead planet earth enveloped in darkness that is completely covered by deep waters all the way around with no continents/no land yet"--we have to ask the question, 'Where did I get this idea about planet earth from?' And the answer is that it was taught to me by the culture/society I live in.
If someone lived in a culture/society that taught a flat earth or Ptolemy's geocentric view or Aristotle's crystalline sphere view of the universe, then they would read the Bible through that lens and world view understanding.
Once again, this is why it's essential that the Bible be read through the lens and world view of the time and culture in which it was written.
Now people keep giving me grief about this, saying don't read Genesis in its Ancient Near East historical context, because the 'plain meaning of the Bible is clear' so all you have to do it "just read and believe it". But such people have fooled themselves into thinking that they're reading the Bible objectively when they're not. They're simply reading the Bible through their own cultural understanding and world view lens.
***So enough of this delusion. If one rejects a Genesis reading in its Ancient Near East historical context and says 'just read and follow the plain meaning', they may think and have fooled themselves into believing they're reading objectively, but they are NOT; they are simply replacing one cultural/world view lens with a different one--their own! So it's not as simple as 'just read and believe'---NO ONE can 'just' do that. If one wants to reject the Ancient Near East historical context of Genesis, then that person has to identify what cultural/world view lens we SHOULD read Genesis through instead, if not the Ancient Near East, and justify that decision.
***Now I see NO justification for reading Genesis 1 through the lens of my own world view understanding and culture. It makes far more sense to read Genesis 1 in its Ancient Near East historical context. This decision finds additional support when we note the closest parallels to Genesis 1:2:
"Now the world was undifferentiated formlessness [töhu wävöhu « Hehu], and darkness [höSek « Keku] was over the surface of the primordial watery deep [tëhôm « Nun]; but the divine wind [rûah 'ëlohîm « Amun] was hovering over the primeval waters [hammäyim « Nun]."
Now the above is from the Egyptian Pyramid Texts & Coffin Texts. These texts are known to date 2100-2400 BC, which is 700 to 1,200 years BEFORE Moses, depending on whether one adopts the 'late' or 'early' date for the Exodus. One cannot help but notice the parallel to Genesis 1:2:
"And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters"
***Now it is difficult to impress upon people how incredibly unusual it is to find this level of agreement between two Ancient Near East texts from different time periods and civilizations. It was once popular to claim that the Genesis creation account was directly dependent on and came from the Babylonian Enuma Elish. This view has fallen into disfavor and today is rejected by most, because the two have similar themes but the themes are common throughout Ancient Near East culture in general and lack specific points of agreement. The differences are too great, and there is nothing even close to the correspondence above. The differences between Genesis 1 and Egyptian creation accounts are also great, but where they are similar those similarities are uncanny like the example above.
In short, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Genesis 1 is not just repudiating Ancient Near East pagan cosmogonies in general, but is *specifically* repudiating the Egyptian Hermopolis creation account tradition reflected in the Pyramid/Coffin Texts. Therefore, we must interpret Genesis 1 in this context, just like we have to interpret Titus 1:12 in the context of the Greek Epimenedes who Paul quotes in that verse ('One of Crete's own prophets has said, "Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, idle bellies'"), or just like we must interpret Jude 9 in the context of the pseudepigraphal book the Assumption of Moses that Jude 9 alludes to.
***In light of these and other uncanny similarities, anyone who rejects this must justify why we should read Genesis 1 through a different cultural/worldview lens than the Ancient Near East. Genesis 1:2 seems to be referring to the primeval cosmic waters in Egyptian creation theology and repudiating their teaching. What reason can I give to reject such an understanding in favor of my own worldview lens that understands 'earth' in Genesis 1:2 to be a planet of our solar system in space? I can find no reason.
It is the inspired Word of God or not. No one gets to make up scripture; it is either the Word of God or false. It does not matter or surprise that other cultures had similar stories; it is not surprising they all shared the same experiences. It also is not surprising that other gods were given credit for things, even the Jewish people; as they left Eygpt gave credit to the golden cafe that Aaron made.
As far as what other people say about it goes, if what they say does not line up scripture with scripture correctly, they lose credibility fast on what they consider truth and error.
For what it's worth,
Earth in Gen c 1 v 1 is the Hebrew word " erets" ( eh-rets -- 'ground, dry land ')
Heavens is " shamelt " ( shaw-mehl - - 'visible arch which the clouds move as well as the higher ether where celestial bodies revolve' )
#1... #776 on Strongs online or book concordance
#2 ... #8064 if anyone cares to look them up.
It's really not a trick question. But if you don't want to answer then no problem. I'll answer it myself. When I read Genesis 1:2 the picture that comes to mind is a lifeless (void/empty), misshapen (formless) dead planet earth enveloped in darkness that is completely covered by deep waters all the way around with no continents/no land yet.
I will also analyze my own answer and explain what's wrong with it.
The problem with my own answer is that it assumes a particular view of the world. A few pages back I was criticized and told: "You perhaps should stop reading what other people say about the Bible so much and just read and believe the Bible."
But that's the big self-deception and self-delusion that people are under! You can't 'just read and believe the Bible' WITHOUT READING WHAT OTHER PEOPLE SAY about it. That's because EVERY translation of the Bible represents SOMEONE ELSE'S INTERPRETATION ALREADY! When the Bible is translated into a different language from the original a bunch of people (usually Bible scholars) get together as part of a translation committee and THEY HAVE TO DECIDE WHAT EACH VERSE MEANS and WHAT THEY THINK each verse is saying in order to know how best to communicate that meaning in a translation. If anyone thinks they just give a literal translation, then think again. So-called 'literal' translations lead to MISUNDERSTANDING, because you're not just translating into a different language but into a different culture as well that has its own changing understanding of words. A 'literal' translation would give you things like: "[God] will put His law in their *intestines/entrails* and write it on their hearts" (Jeremiah 31:33)! So unless you know how to read the Bible in its original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, then be under no illusion that when you read a translation of the Bible you are reading a BUNCH OF PEOPLE'S BELIEFS, OPINIONS, INTERPRETATIONS of WHAT THEY THINK the Bible says.
Second, NO ONE reads the Bible with an empty head devoid of any pre-conceived ideas. EVERYONE reads and interprets the Bible in the context of a world view perception THAT THEY ALREADY HAVE.
So when I write that "When I read Genesis 1:2 the picture that comes to mind is a lifeless (void/empty), misshapen (formless) dead planet earth enveloped in darkness that is completely covered by deep waters all the way around with no continents/no land yet"--we have to ask the question, 'Where did I get this idea about planet earth from?' And the answer is that it was taught to me by the culture/society I live in.
If someone lived in a culture/society that taught a flat earth or Ptolemy's geocentric view or Aristotle's crystalline sphere view of the universe, then they would read the Bible through that lens and world view understanding.
Once again, this is why it's essential that the Bible be read through the lens and world view of the time and culture in which it was written.
Now people keep giving me grief about this, saying don't read Genesis in its Ancient Near East historical context, because the 'plain meaning of the Bible is clear' so all you have to do it "just read and believe it". But such people have fooled themselves into thinking that they're reading the Bible objectively when they're not. They're simply reading the Bible through their own cultural understanding and world view lens.
***So enough of this delusion. If one rejects a Genesis reading in its Ancient Near East historical context and says 'just read and follow the plain meaning', they may think and have fooled themselves into believing they're reading objectively, but they are NOT; they are simply replacing one cultural/world view lens with a different one--their own! So it's not as simple as 'just read and believe'---NO ONE can 'just' do that. If one wants to reject the Ancient Near East historical context of Genesis, then that person has to identify what cultural/world view lens we SHOULD read Genesis through instead, if not the Ancient Near East, and justify that decision.
***Now I see NO justification for reading Genesis 1 through the lens of my own world view understanding and culture. It makes far more sense to read Genesis 1 in its Ancient Near East historical context. This decision finds additional support when we note the closest parallels to Genesis 1:2:
"Now the world was undifferentiated formlessness [töhu wävöhu « Hehu], and darkness [höSek « Keku] was over the surface of the primordial watery deep [tëhôm « Nun]; but the divine wind [rûah 'ëlohîm « Amun] was hovering over the primeval waters [hammäyim « Nun]."
Now the above is from the Egyptian Pyramid Texts & Coffin Texts. These texts are known to date 2100-2400 BC, which is 700 to 1,200 years BEFORE Moses, depending on whether one adopts the 'late' or 'early' date for the Exodus. One cannot help but notice the parallel to Genesis 1:2:
"And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters"
***Now it is difficult to impress upon people how incredibly unusual it is to find this level of agreement between two Ancient Near East texts from different time periods and civilizations. It was once popular to claim that the Genesis creation account was directly dependent on and came from the Babylonian Enuma Elish. This view has fallen into disfavor and today is rejected by most, because the two have similar themes but the themes are common throughout Ancient Near East culture in general and lack specific points of agreement. The differences are too great, and there is nothing even close to the correspondence above. The differences between Genesis 1 and Egyptian creation accounts are also great, but where they are similar those similarities are uncanny like the example above.
In short, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Genesis 1 is not just repudiating Ancient Near East pagan cosmogonies in general, but is *specifically* repudiating the Egyptian Hermopolis creation account tradition reflected in the Pyramid/Coffin Texts. Therefore, we must interpret Genesis 1 in this context, just like we have to interpret Titus 1:12 in the context of the Greek Epimenedes who Paul quotes in that verse ('One of Crete's own prophets has said, "Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, idle bellies'"), or just like we must interpret Jude 9 in the context of the pseudepigraphal book the Assumption of Moses that Jude 9 alludes to.
***In light of these and other uncanny similarities, anyone who rejects this must justify why we should read Genesis 1 through a different cultural/worldview lens than the Ancient Near East. Genesis 1:2 seems to be referring to the primeval cosmic waters in Egyptian creation theology and repudiating their teaching. What reason can I give to reject such an understanding in favor of my own worldview lens that understands 'earth' in Genesis 1:2 to be a planet of our solar system in space? I can find no reason.
It is the inspired Word of God or not. No one gets to make up scripture; it is either the Word of God or false. It does not matter or surprise that other cultures had similar stories; it is not surprising they all shared the same experiences. It also is not surprising that other gods were given credit for things, even the Jewish people; as they left Eygpt gave credit to the golden cafe that Aaron made.
As far as what other people say about it goes, if what they say does not line up scripture with scripture correctly, they lose credibility fast on what they consider truth and error.
None of that changes the truth of what I've said. In fact, that's all the more reason why we need to interpret the Bible within its proper historical context. Interpreting in the wrong context gives us a wrong understanding of the Bible that the divinely inspired text does not support.
For what it's worth,
Earth in Gen c 1 v 1 is the Hebrew word " erets" ( eh-rets -- 'ground, dry land ')
Heavens is " shamelt " ( shaw-mehl - - 'visible arch which the clouds move as well as the higher ether where celestial bodies revolve' )
#1... #776 on Strongs online or book concordance
#2 ... #8064 if anyone cares to look them up.
Thank you. There was variation in the meaning of 'earth' just like there is today, so eretz sometimes means the whole world (although they didn't picture a planet), and sometimes it refers to the physical stuff the earth is made of like when we speak of soil as 'good, tilled earth', but you're absolutely correct that most of the time eretz refers to land/dry ground. It does seem like eretz is used in two or more of the different senses mentioned above, but the predominant use of the Hebrew word both in number and emphasis in Genesis is ground/dry land exactly as you say. I'm a little more uncertain about 'heavens', which is sometimes used to refer to the heavenly realm of God's abode and sometimes refers to the sky, clouds, etc. But as far Genesis 1 goes, yes, I think you're right about that too. That seems to be the main usage and understanding in Genesis 1.
With regard to Genesis 1:2 again, it seems pretty clear that the verse is directly alluding to Egyptian creation pagan theology, as already discussed:
Genesis 1:2 ("And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters") seems to be a direct repudiation of this much older Egyptian Hermopolis creation account tradition reflected in the Pyramid/Coffin Texts:
"Now the world was undifferentiated formlessness [töhu wävöhu « Hehu], and darkness [höSek « Keku] was over the surface of the primordial watery deep [tëhôm « Nun]; but the divine wind [rûah 'ëlohîm « Amun] was hovering over the primeval waters [hammäyim « Nun]."
***Now the significance of this is profound, because it fundamentally changes how we're supposed to understand Genesis. The high degree of correspondence between Genesis 1 and Egyptian creation accounts is pretty much unparalleled, and the accounts speak of the 'primordial watery deep/primeval waters' in a very specific way that shows a close connection between the two. However, the 'primordial watery deep/primeval waters' is not unique to the Egyptian accounts, but is one of the most common motifs in Ancient Near East creation accounts. The idea of a pre-existent chaotic state of matter (for millions of years to an infinite time) represented by the primeval/primordial 'cosmic waters/cosmic ocean' that gods/goddesses create the world out of by bringing order and purpose to this chaotic state is one of the most pervasive themes in Ancient Near East cosmogonies.
This is significant because it tells us that Genesis 1:2 is not referring to the 'earth' as we do today where we picture earth as a planet in our solar system, but is referring to this common motif in Ancient Near East pagan cosmogonies. Indeed, Genesis 1:2 is directly attacking these pagan beliefs by stripping them of polytheism, among other things.
***But the main take away for our purposes is the realization that this Ancient Near East idea of chaotic 'primordial/cosmic waters' is pure religion/theology through and through. There was no real physical, material place one could go to in order to see these 'primordial/cosmic waters', because they belonged to an 'other worldly', mystical, almost ethereal pre-existent, dark, shadowy realm. In other words, these 'primordial/cosmic waters' have NO true corollary or correspondence to anything in our physical reality. It was out of this mysterious realm of primordial matter that the earth was created by ordering and organizing this undifferentiated, formless, chaotic matter into an ordered, functional world.
***In short, when we realize that Genesis 1:2 is directly alluding to this Ancient Near East idea of a mysterious, pre-existent realm of chaotic 'primordial matter' (i.e., the 'primeval/cosmic waters'), and when we further realize that this idea was a completely religious, theological idea with no real corollary to anything in our physical, material world, then we realize that there is NO way that we can turn Genesis 1:2 into some supposed scientifically factual statement that accords with our world without doing injustice to the text and distorting its TRUE intended meaning.
***If we now continued through the rest of Genesis 1 we would come to a similar conclusion as we noticed for example that Genesis follows the same sequence/order of events as the Egpytian creation accounts starting with the creation of light (before the sun, moon and stars are created), and then the separation of waters by a firmament, and then the appearance of dry land and so forth, with the only twist being that the last event in the Egpytian accounts of the creation of the sun in the image of the Egpytian god Ra is in Genesis 1 swapped with the preceding creation of humanity (while stripping the account of all polytheism) and puts the creation of humanity (in God’s image) last. When we realize that the sequence of events in Genesis 1 is patterned after the sequence of events in the Egyptian creation accounts---accounts that are pure religion/theology through and through---then it's hard to see how we can possibly understand the sequence of days in Genesis 1 as being meant to communicate scientifically factual information. It is more obviously a didactic device used to sequentially refute Egpytian pagan theology while highlighting the sacred Jewish Sabbath.
Consummate record keepers? They were biased recorders of history just like everyone else who altered the truth of what happened in military campaigns to make themselves look better and omitted anything that might be embarrassing or make them look weak or defeated
I agree, they often spun the facts to reflect more favourably on themselves but the point is that they still recorded such events. So there's no reason why they wouldn't have recorded the captivity of an entire people and their departure, albeit represented in a flattering way to the pharoah of the time.
According to Genesis, what was God's first creative act?
I answered that in my response to your first question.
Must have missed it, so humor me. If you mean the first thing God did was he 'created the heavens and the earth,' then you've already lost me, because most everyone understands Genesis 1:1 to be a summary statement of the whole creation account that means 'In the beginning God created' everything (i.e., the entire universe). Are you saying that 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth' does NOT mean that God created everything, but only created *some* things ?
Just read the words used, I don't have to add to them, what does it say, "In the beginning ..." God created what? The heavens and the earth, not the heavens and everything currently on the earth, not the heavens and anything He created later.